Posted on 06/06/2003 9:46:51 AM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
Years go by, and the abortion struggle rages on.
I would like to suggest that the following doctrine is a basis for an uneasy resolution to the political conflict; one that may eventually come to be accepted by all.
Abortion should be legal, but only up to a certain date. We need to define, as best as we can, when we are dealing with a human being.
The current definition of the law afford NO recognition that a developing child is a human being until the moment that child leaves his or her mother's womb. Anyone who pays the faintest attention to what we know through medical science can readily recognize that, at full term, this is far, far too late.
If a developing child is old enough to survive outside of the womb, even with medical assistance, then it's a human being. Obviously.
If the developing child is old enough to feel pain, regardless of whether or not an anesthetic is administered, then it is developed enough to be a human being, and destroying the said developing child must be illegal.
Practically, this means that for humane reasons, all abortions after a certain date (somewhere between 8 and 24 weeks) should be made illegal. This is only humane, and even 8 weeks would allow more than a month for decision making and getting an abortion appointment (although I suspect that a medical consensus would put the development of pain later than that).
The vast majority of abortions already take place before 24 weeks now. However, it is currently legal to destroy developing children at any stage of development, as long as at least part of the child is still inside the mother's body.
I believe this is the basis of the solution to the abortion problem. Part B is that accurate information must be provided to women considering an abortion. Potential adverse effects must be covered, and other options, including adoption, must be adequately presented. A waiting period may also be appropriate.
None of these takes away choice. The choice is still there whether to have a baby or have an abortion.
One can therefore be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time.
I also argue for use of the term "developing child" (which is intuitive, completely accurate and fully descriptive) rather than use of the term "fetus."
Political wars are won and lost on the choice of words.
Little risk to the mother, mortal risk to the fetus. After all, if you kill someone, the only way justice can be served is for the living to act for the dead - and that is true whether it is an adult, a child or a fetus who is killed.
Scott Peterson is facing charges for killing his son inside the mother. Had Laci Peterson decided to kill that child a few months earlier via abortion, she would not have faced charges. But one is murder and the other is legal, and NOW has a cow over even Patterson's action being illegal, because they understand where the logic behind declaring Patterson's action a crime - that a fetus is a human and deserving of protection in the womb.
God has given the gift of free will. That's what is up with that. That, of course, does not mean that what we choose to do with that free will is right or that He approves of same. (If you are or ever were a parent of an 18 year old child, you should be able to relate. LOL)
Read his statement again:
We cannot (as a civilized society) continue condoning the killing of what are obviously our children.
So by saying that a zygote isn't obviously human, it provides the legal rationale to abort it.
Our society makes choices for others all the time - they are called laws.
You bet!
The "lightning rod" experience is an interesting one. I'm sure I haven't seen the last of it, since I believe I have ideas that can meaningfully contribute to our cultural and political life, and would like, if possible, to eventually fly them in other venues than FR. :-)
The mere existence of polarization does not mean that a compromise between the opposing parties is the right solution.
There was extreme polarization between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery sides in the 1800's.
Each side fervently used religion to back its argument.
The pro-slavery people did not have a basic right to keep their slaves.
The pro-abortion people do not have a "basic" right to kill an unborn child, either.
Allowing the abortion of an unborn child, below a certain developmental age, is age descrimination at its harshest.
It is similar to the age/size demarcation the Nazis had for deciding which concentration camp prisoners would be allowed to live, and which prisoners would be killed.
It would be like allowing slaves of certain sizes or ages to go free, and keeping the others enslaved.
Abortion, however, is.
Perhaps, because my goal IS to end abortion. :)
"It all depends on what your definition of 'is', is"...
Doing another stupid thing isn't going to help matters. Don't kid yourself. People find out that women have had abortions more often than you know. Especially if it is someone like a Laura Bush.
If there are so many good people willing to adopt these unwanted children, why are they sitting there waiting?
As has been stated previously in this thread, the reason so many kids are 'waiting' is that the biological parents don't want to relinquish their parental rights for whatever reason (which are mostly stupid and selfish).
Regardless of whether you "recognize" a human zygote as a human being, it is, in fact, a human being.
I always recognized it as human worthy of respect and admiration. But not legal protection to the point of forcing the mother to keep it. I don't want to establish "scientific" criteria for this (like a heartbeat) because that would weaken my argument to women trying to convince them not to abort even at the earliest stages.
Lol, thanks.
BTW, we can't require dispensing of information about the possible adverse effects of abortion, without also requiring dispensing of information about the possible adverse effects of having a baby you don't want and/or can't afford to raise. There are plenty of the latter...
Definitely. Although I haven't talked about it much in this thread, I'm a big proponent of making adoption easy to do. Adoption should feature very, very prominently on the list of choices that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has access to. And we should pass laws making adoption easier, both for a woman having a baby, and for couples wanting to adopt.
So a few months in the life of a mother, who in almost all cases acted in free will to create the fetus, takes precedent over a fetus which found itself created in that mother's womb and will lose its entire life if aborted.
That, again, requires a certain dehumanization of the fetus in its earlier stages.
Abortion is wrong. If it is deemed necessary to terminate a pregnancy for the life of a mother, that decision should be left up to the family involved, not government. In any other circumstances are irrelevant, abortion then would not be NEEDED, but WANTED, making it a selfish killing for convenience!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.